Last great Volvo?

Ask Honda, they built their MotoGP bike with a V5. As it won the campionship it must have been pretty good

Not saying *you* need or even want a turbo, just helping to debunk the persistent unreliable/expensive myth surrounding them in general.

Thanx to all who have responded so far.

I was really teetering between a 945T or moving to an 850 with the 5 cyl., though I prefer RWD. I was happy to see the positive responses for the 900 series.

If anyone else has suggestions, please chime in. I don't really have the

10K to buy something like a late model used XC or V series, but I would be interested in opinions on their long use reviews.

If it weren't for my 245 fan blower problem, and the fact that my mechanic cannot seem to keep the front seal in it (yes the flame trap gets changed regularly) ,I would just keep driving my old buddy.

Thanx all, Jeff

James Sweet wrote:

The fan motor is not really *that* hard to change.

Has he checked for positive crankcase pressure? More than just the flame trap can cause that. It's possible for the breather box to get clogged. Loosen the oil fill cap with the engine running and see if it hops around or stays sucked to the hole.

Which way shows the problem: hopping or sucking?

Hopping means positive pressure, the cap will feel the same effect as the oil seals.

I guess it depends upon your definition of great. Some would put the cut-off at the '93 240 as the end of the line of the last Volvo which completely embodied the original spirit of the company. Another choice might be the last of the 940s. For really long term durability it is hard to match the "red-block" 4 cylinder rear wheel drive Volvos.

Starting with the 850, Volvo was making great effort to reduce costs by doing things like making more and more parts out of plastic. Compare the constuction details of a 240 to an 850 sometime to see this. Even so, and 850 was built with more care and more over engineering than most of it's contemporaries.

John

In all fairness, it wasn't just to reduce cost. Much of the change to lighter materials was to improve fuel efficiency, and with the 850 they did succeed in squeezing out substantially improved fuel economy.

Uuuuhh, and just what is the original spirit that post 1993 cars seem to lack.

Safety has been a cornerstone of the Volvo reputation, and I think it is "safe" to say that the later cars are indeed much safer than the earlier boxes on wheels. And they certainly handle much better.

Greetings,

Chris

According to the EPA figures, a '93 manual transmission 240 was rated at

21 city, 28 highway. The 850 for the same year with manual transmission was rated at 21 city, 30 highway. Certainly a slight gain, but not what I would call substantial.

I've owned both 240s and 850s and I did not find the 850 to have markedly better fuel economy than the 240. With automatic transmissions both run in the low 20s for local driving and the high 20s for long highway trips.

John

You're comparing an established 4-cylinder engine (the '93 240) with a brand new 5-cylinder engine( '93 850). By 2000, we were able to get 30+MPG highway on the 5-cylinder/auto/hi- pressure turbo. What I would consider to be a very nice improvement.

We had an 89 240 for years and currently drive a 98 V70 non-turbo with automatic trans.

The improvement in gas mileage has been significant. The 240 got around 20 city/25 highway, while the V70 gets around 25 city/ low 30s highway. All figures in miles per Can./UK gallon.

When you take into account the extra carrying capacity of the wagon and the slightly extra hp of the larger 5 cyl. engine, this is a good news story.

Inno D.

Thanx again for all the info on this topic.

9 series seems to be where I am heading.

As I want to make my next Volvo both a wagon and RWD the below post concerns me the most. As I look around there seem to be more 965's than

945's.

Several people (in this thread and elsewhere) have made mention to avoid the 6 cyl Volvos.

Why?

Jeff

mdraws> Early 90's 940 turbo, nice looking, roomy, rear-wheel drive (goes well in

No reason to avoid them, but do would check the car out as thoroughly as you would any other 10 year old car with a lot of miles. Here's some information on the 6 cylinder engine used in the 960 series.

Avoid the *V6* Volvos, some have had great success with that motor, but there are many sob stories and nobody wants to work on them. The I6 Volvos such as the 960 are very good, you just need to keep up on maintenance like you do with any of the white block motors.

I commented about the 6-cylinder volvos. We had a '97 S90 (which is a

960) --- beautiful car, nice size, rwd, etc., however, it had a 6-cylinder engine, no turbo --- this was before they started adding the twin turbo to it on the S80s. The engine performed well at the low end of the power curve --- great pick-up from a standing stop --- but trying to get it to accelerate quickly at the higher end of the power curve, well there wasn't anything there. We had a near-incident where we needed to get out of the way quickly while running at about 60 MPH --- so when I pushed the accelerator to the floor to get a jump to 80 or so, absolutely nothing happened (we were able to avoid an accident by veering around awkwardly since we couldn't accelerate past it).

We loved that car, but became very aware of its lack of power when needed, and switched it out for an S70 with a high-pressure turbo.

We also still have a '91 940 turbo(the tried and true 4 cylinder engine), which has held up extremely well and has more power than that 6-cylinder S90 ever had. Best car Volvo ever made!

Beyond that, Volvo used the 6-cylinder with a turbo in the S80 and several other models , and even that didn't work out very well. This last year, they dropped that 6-cylinder from all models that had it, and now have just introduced a new 6-cylinder that seems much better.

All that, FWIW.

Are you sure there was nothing wrong with your 960? The inline 6 is rated close to 200HP, while the 4 cylinder turbo in the 940 is 160HP. Now granted HP only tells part of the story, but the I6 should feel substantially more powerful than a stock B230FT. Was the kickdown function of the transmission working? Most engines with 4 valves per cylinder produce the bulk of their power in the higher RPM range just like the turbo engines. If the gearbox is not downshifted, they will feel sluggish.